Unilink design update - ready for manufacture

[@mekkler]

Simpler, cheaper, easier to manufacture, the ultimate goal of engineering. Great job!

[@Jacopo.]

So nice to see the iterations development and the solving issues solutions to make an intelligent and versatile final product. I design in the same fashion. Thumbs up

[@rock-riverengineering8193]

Brilliant. Good luck.

[@elfantasma...1886]

eres un genio Paul mis respetos a un gran inventor de recursos para facilitar el armado de domos felicitaciones

[@rolliebca]

This is a very well done explainer video. Thanks for bringing us along on the journey. I love seeing progressive iterations showing problems and solutions as a product heads towards final finished product. Congratulations on a well thought out journey.

[@dakodaspencershmacked5089]

Love tracking the progress of this. Keep up the great work!

[@kingmasterlord]

well what's the state of things right now? because I'm going to be setting up a small metalworking shop over the next year, if he wants distributed manufacturing we might need to talk

[@davidfuller764]

I clicked the bell... thanks for all updates. Good luck.

[@kevingooley6189]

Great progress! I love having a single piece.

[@davidmicheletti6292]

A well thought out design.

[@TheRebelmanone]

Good ideal. This ideal can be expanded on, and you could cut the v bevels in the top of the strut with this design, allowing flat panels to be installed. Installing flat panels will strengthen those Wager joints...

[@blueckaym]

It's very interesting design! I've also been wondering how to make universal geo-dome connector design that easily adapts to any type & size of geo-dome. (I also have a design based on two perpendicular bolts to allow correct angles in either plane - see my other comment below for details) I think I see few potential problems with this design - that's if you're trying to make them all the same shape that is. I'll use an example of v3 dome - regular one (ie without corrections for flat base) - I think same one as the one you're showing at 0:29 1st) If you want to keep the struts lengths the same (per type of struts) you would need such link elements with slightly different lengths. The reason is that in any of the 3 hub types (5- & 6-way regulars at 72 & 60 degrees respectively, and one irregular with different angles about 55 & 62 degrees) your links will basically be chords of a circle of the whole connector hub. These chords would be different lengths for different angles. That's if you want your struts axis to converge in a single point (which would allow you to use the same struts length per type of struts - ie for a v3 dome only 3 struts lengths). There are two issues here: the difference in angles between the two regular hubs (5 & 6-way) is too big 72 & 60 degrees. You can potentially make them all 6-way hubs at 60 degrees, for the 5-way one leave one connection empty (ie only with a bolt, but no strut) but then you'll have to recalculate and correct your struts lengths because since they're not lying on the axises converging in the same point anymore they'll get slightly longer. The good thing here is that it would affect all the struts of the respective type (ie the longest & the shortest ones) so once precise calculations are done you'll still have only one length per type of strut. 2nd) the irregular 6-way isn't so lucky - the angles are much closer to regular 6-way of 60 degrees (at about 55 & 62) so these corrections in struts lengths would be very minor (though I worry they might still accumulate thru the dome and create trouble on opposite dome end), but the bigger trouble is that you have all 3 types of struts connecting in this type of hub. The longest & shortest struts again will only participate in the same combination of hubs (considering both ends), but the medium one (ie the so called 'normal' struts - ei the ones drawing the pentagons & hexagons) will participate in two types of connections (again considering both ends) so after corrections you'll end up with two slightly different lengths of the 'normal' struts. Of course it's still possible to install it this way, but more attention is needed to measurements, cuttings & markings. 3rd) Issue that worries me is strength - it's great to optimize the shape of the material in order to lose the unneeded material, but the above link I worry will have the flat end take load forces perpendicular to its plane - ie in the weakest direction. For the size you're showing (for a small lightweight dome I assume - given the 6mm bolt holes) it leaves about 2 or maximum 3mm of plate thickness. If forces are perpendicular to that plane these 2 or 3 mm even if from steel won't take much to bend I'm afraid. I guess one solution to this problem would be to add a Fillet /or a Root as sometimes called/ (with some radius) between the two planes which would transfer some of the bending forces into tensile/compression force in that Fillet (similar to a wide-flange steel beam's web - how it doesn't make sharp 90 degree angle with the flange). That would probably require to increase the distance of the 'tongue' ie the part of the link that makes the angled connection and links the two holes. I guess a not-reinforced link would still be strong enough for lightweight domes like for example for greenhouses (unless they have to carry a lot of glass at least), but bigger and heavier domes (like for a house with radius of about lets say 6m) might require much stronger connections. Still I appreciate your efforts highly! And hope I'm being useful with my comments, and that perhaps it helps you perfect the design! Cheers! :)

[@TigrouRebelle]

Really great, i hope a french marketing. Good job !

[@inybinygirl]

Wow this is awesome Paul. I look forward to hearing what the final manufacturing costs will be. Congratulations.

[@zevlondon]

hi paul, thumbs up, you're up to something neat there

[@emmanuelraj...]

I think you can still make identical pieces. If the hole in one ear (vertical) is offset to match (be in one straight line) the corresponding offset hole in the other piece will be on the horizontal ear of the second piece.

[@frostleesnowman9191]

Would the part have any advantages with the new design for building in earthquake zones ?

[@pawelkondratowicz6889]

Bravo Paul! Name of this solution should sound like "whatever you want" :)

[@blueckaym]

Nice design! But ... I have few questions :) Lets take the most popular dome frequency (v3) as example: You would have 3 types of joints: 2 regular types: ie 5-way at 72 degrees each, and 6-way at 60 degrees each; and one irregular with (roughly) two 55 degree angles next to each other, and 4 about 62 degrees for the rest of the irregular 6-way hub. So with that example you would need about 4 different such joints - same design but some of them would need to have slightly longer or shorter distance between the bolts' holes (ie chords of the hub's circle) to achieve correct angles (and for other esp. higher frequencies you would need more variations if these elements) - that's if you want to keep the struts lengths equal (per type). Otherwise - say you're using regular 6-way hub angles for the irregular one (which is fine since bolts rotation will allow that adjustment), but it will affect just a little bit the length of the struts (only about few mm). But that small change in length should not be ignored or it would accumulate and your dome would change geometry and quite possibly won't fit correctly when you reach the opposite end. Trouble is that in the irregular hub all the 3 different length struts (of a v3 frequency dome) are connected, and it means that all three of them should have their lengths precisely re-calculated and measured. The longest & shortest ones I think will always participate in same types of joints (considering both ends of a strut), but the middle length (ie the 'normal' ones - that draw the pentagon & hexagon shapes) would have two angles combinations ie you would need two slightly different lengths for the 'normal' struts.

[@IronMan-yg4qw]

improved! awesome1

[@RA-rf4nz]

Brilliant!

[@Antuan2911]

Very nice! but you can't bend it like that. Needs much more bending radius inside and also outside. Usual inside bending radius is about the part thickness and outside radius is double of that. So, if you can't make it thinner, for obvious reasons, then the only other solutions are welding or casting.

[@blnkstefaans6892]

Hi, Paul.Great, when can we expect the pricing of brackets?

[@aldemarbanguero1690]

¿se encuentran estos accesorios en el mercado?¿en que mercado? ¿cual es el precio? gracias por las respuestas. Saludos desde Colombia en el sur de América.

[@trollslandan4062]

Do you think 3d printed prototype in Nylon is strong enough? What material was used in previous 3d printed prototypes?

[@Geo-Dome]

I just used cheap nylon for the 3D prints, this new design has bee designed for pressed metal production. I'm just finishing final design and have a manufacturer for pressed metal, happy to send drawings to anyone who is interested in printing though.

[@IronMan-yg4qw]

brilliant!

[@Mimarlife]

how many mm thickness?

[@Geo-Dome]

3mm thick 304 stainless steel.

[@Dragon90815a]

Did it work

[@Geo-Dome]

Yes, a few changes on the way but it's in manufacture now. Shop opening soon

[@pfkellogg]

@@Geo-Dome Are they available for purchase and if so do you ship to Colombia. Thanks.

[@almcm8120]

Hey Paul whats the Best way to contact you I emailed you But you never responded.Are you still selling plans? And do you ever use Skpe?

[@almcm8120]

Paul Thanks for the Quick Response i just got your email..

[@8thsinner]

I can appreciate the benefit of single component creation but I would personally not want wriggle room. Wriggle room under pressures without a locking system have a tendency to spread in stuttering explosiveness if that makes sense?if one part slips or gets a knock, that wriggle room for every other part can amplify and travel. I would rather have absolute bolt integrity. Building is often done with two part pieces, and if you're too damn lazy to count your parts out to put in the pocket then you shouldn't be in construction to begin with.

[@jhni1]

hi paul how can i email or contact you?

[@Geo-Dome]

paul (at) geo-dome.net is best, admin (at) geo-dome.co.uk should also work but it's old and I get a lot of spam.

[@danjones9999]

I’m not sure I like the sound of wiggle room! Why not manufacture the piece with ‘teeth’ in the horizontal part which could mesh when paired with another one so that they would both sit on the same plane? They wouldn’t be able to rotate freely, but you could easily use a number of teeth which would allow fixed positions for two, three, four, five etc strut combinations.

[@thesidburgess]

Beat me to this suggestion. Markings with degrees would be really interesting.

[@Geo-Dome]

There would be + - 1mm of wiggle room, looks more on the drawing. Angle marking could be done but the theory is that you don't need angles, if you have strut lengths and brackets all the angles work themselves out automatically. Thanks for your input I do find all the comments very useful.

[@internettoughguy]

Doesn't it bother you that AvE used your design to make content for his channel and didn't even bother to give credit to where it came from? ...cause it really pisses me off. I mentioned it in a thread on his video and nobody even acknowledge it.

[@Geo-Dome]

No, really it's all cool. Ave asked if anyone had a good idea he would help out and make a prototype. I applied ( it was called the pump house CNC I think) I did a video and sent files not expecting anything would happen, I was amazed when he actually spent time and money making lots of the brackets and produced a video commentary on his thoughts/ideas about the function and manufacturing of the brackets. It's been very useful to get comments and I have to say he was right about pressing it from steel, I'm having some made that way now. I was actually really impressed that a big youtube like Ave would take the time to help out a small guy like me. Honestly he's done me a massive favour, I'm not interested in credits I just want an honest opinion from an engineer if it looks like a good idea or not.

[@internettoughguy]

@@Geo-Dome Paul he didn't spend any time or money making those brackets. He just made you think that and was being completely disingenuous. He sent your files to Chris DePrisco and somehow convinced him to spend the time to make them on his Tormach...and he mentioned Chris in his video!!!This is what really bugs me about the guy. He took advantage of you and your idea to create content for his channel which generates revenue and gave you no credit whatsoever because you're a small channel and he probably thought no one would ever know. It's a classic case of the big guy taking advantage of the little guy. Maybe you don't see it because you seem a little star struck but that's why AvE can get away with it. Fyi, he's not an engineer. Anyway, I just think what he did was wrong but hey...that's just the way I was raised.

[@SmeeUncleJoe]

@@Geo-Dome these aren't engineers, but if you would be so kind as to send me a PM, I'm happy to help you with your prototypes and at no charge. One of my favourite quotes comes from John Steinbeck " People don't want advice, they want collaboration". I'd rather hear first on what you want this joint's specs to be, rather than what it should look like or how to make it. The worst thing is reinventing the wheel.

[@takidom]

толку от твоей системы ? если работает узел гибки , который был и так растянут . !!! не подумал об этом ?